This rule is identical with Fed. R. Evid. 403. It recognizes the necessity for discretionary qualification of the general admissibility rule, based on such factors as potential for engendering juror prejudice, hostility, or sympathy; potential for confusion or distraction; and likelihood of undue waste of time. See McCormick §185. "Unfair prejudice," as the Advisory Committee's Note to Fed. R. Evid. 403 explains, "means an undue tendency to suggest decision on an improper basis, commonly, though not necessarily, an emotional one." In some cases assessment of potential for prejudice will depend upon the court's view of the ability and willingness of jurors to follow a limiting instruction, see Rule 105 supra. Necessity for a Rule 403 "balance" can arise in a variety of contexts because of the pervasive nature of the principle. In particular, Rules 404(b), 608(b), and 609 implicitly call for application of this principle.
Hawaii courts have addressed the issue of discretionary exclusion of relevant evidence in the context of admissibility of gruesome or inflammatory photographs, see State v. Apao, 59 H. 625, 586 P.2d 250 (1978). "Other crimes" evidence, see Rule 404(b) infra, presents a classic example of the necessity for the Rule 403 balance, as the Hawaii Supreme Court recognized in State v. Iaukea, 56 H. 343, 349, 537 P.2d 724, 729 (1975): "The responsibility for maintaining the delicate balance between probative value and prejudicial effect lies largely within the discretion of the trial court." In State v. Murphy, 59 H. 1, 575 P.2d 448 (1978), again in commenting on "other crimes" evidence, the court stressed the trial court's responsibility of assessing the balance between probative value and prejudicial effect and noted that considerations germane to such a balancing process should include actual need for the evidence, availability of other evidence on the same issues, probative weight of the evidence, and the potential for creating prejudice and hostility against the accused in the minds of the jurors. The court recently noted that character evidence (see Rule 404(a) infra) must be evaluated with reference to the Rule 403 principle, see State v. Lui, 61 H. 328, 603 P.2d 151 (1979).
